get_channel_format_guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with supported features, restrictions, prompts) and provides a per-channel feature overview, making read-only behavior implicit. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is purely informational with no side effects, though this is strongly implied by the guide-like nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, a channel comparison table, Arg definitions, Returns, and Examples. Every section conveys unique information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately communicates the tool's function, and the channel table is compact yet highly informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given its simplicity (one optional param, read-only, no side effects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, valid channel values, return format, and examples. The presence of an output schema is noted, so the description need not detail return fields exhaustively. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only a parameter name and type without description or enum, giving 0% schema coverage. The description fully compensates by listing all valid channel values (feishu, dingtalk, wework, telegram, email, ntfy, bark, slack, generic_webhook) and explaining that omitting the parameter returns all channels. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves formatting strategy guides for notification channels, listing supported Markdown features, format restrictions, and formatting prompts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_notification and get_notification_channels by focusing on format guidance rather than sending or listing channels.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs to use this tool before calling send_notification to understand target channel format requirements, providing a clear workflow. It also notes the optional channel parameter and that omitting it returns all channel strategies, giving conditional usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.